No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[angellous_evangellous]

What I fail to understand is how a person like yourself who thinks himself 'scholarly' can be taken in by obvious religious hype.

Does not the fact that a town of Nazareth which exists only in the vacuum of the NT alone give you a clue? That should be immediately apparent to any real scholarly mind. Or does dogma dictate what is 'scholarly'?

The same goes for the vacuum-sealed Resurrection, with its fabricated '500 eyewitnesses', (oooh, nice, round number!) none of which Paul bothered to interview, in spite of his claim that some were still living at the time of his writing.

Well, I'm completing a PhD degree in NT and Early Christian Studies. We did a broad range of study in the ancient world and I focused on Greek and Roman philosophy for my major and philosophical interpretation for my minor.

There was no talk at any time of following Church doctrine or dogma. We did all of our work using the best tools of study that are available.

As for Nazareth, the question doesn't really require that much attention. All we have to know is some history of the area and the nature of the sources, combined with other contextual issues that need to be addressed. But a student who is not a complete moron can dismiss the silly Nazareth claims with little reflection and move on to more serious matters.

In my circles, whether or not Nazareth existed is insignificant. The claim that N. did not exist is a stupid one, but even if it were true, it would not affect my work in the slightest. I'd be delighted to make fun of the idiots that believe this, but there are so few of them I don't think that I would get the pleasure.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, I'm completing a PhD degree in NT and Early Christian Studies. We did a broad range of study in the ancient world and I focused on Greek and Roman philosophy for my major and philosophical interpretation for my minor.

There was no talk at any time of following Church doctrine or dogma. We did all of our work using the best tools of study that are available.

As for Nazareth, the question doesn't really require that much attention. All we have to know is some history of the area and the nature of the sources, combined with other contextual issues that need to be addressed. But a student who is not a complete moron can dismiss the silly Nazareth claims with little reflection and move on to more serious matters.

In my circles, whether or not Nazareth existed is insignificant. The claim that N. did not exist is a stupid one, but even if it were true, it would not affect my work in the slightest. I'd be delighted to make fun of the idiots that believe this, but there are so few of them I don't think that I would get the pleasure.

Well, now, here we are at page number 105 and you are still gratingly and grumblingly displeased. You continue to let us all know that you have no problem with the issue of Nazareth, and that anyone who comes to the conclusion that it did not exist is a complete idiot. On your say-so alone we should all immediately drop the issue and simply believe in you, without any explanations.

Not gonna happen.

I suggest that, instead of wasting your superior brains on this forum with idiots like myself, you write to Salm and Randi and set them straight. Surely they would appreciate your light being shed on their misguided foolishness. That way, they can publish a retraction communicated to all who follow their lead, settling the matter once and for all.

:beach:

Maybe you have no problem in casually dismissing the issue of Nazareth, but there are many others who consider the issue an important one, especially when some will jump to the conclusion that the discovery of a small house and some farm artifacts point to a 'city' of Nazareth. In addition, Rene Salm is claiming that some of the artifacts have been dated incorrectly by Christian researchers. All he wants to do is set the record straight.

So we have your dismissal without an argument. Sounds as if you are through here.

 

[godnotgod]

If you knew something about ancient history, you wouldn't be so gullible.

Ironic that you don't fall for the truth by accident.

A mixture of luck and lack of skill I guess.

Unlike you, I never seek 'THE TRUTH'; I only try to cease the cherishing of opinions.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sounds as if you are through here. [/COLOR]

Not as long as I am pleased with your responses.

Every time I see that you've posted here it puts me in a good mood for a while.

(Well, most of the time)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You continue to let us all know that you have no problem with the issue of Nazareth, and that anyone who comes to the conclusion that it did not exist is a complete idiot.

Exactly. Rene, if he's spammed properly here, is an idiot.

His follower is gullible. Some of his followers are idiots also, but I'd like to presume that they are just gullible.

And symptomatic of your gullibility is your defense of him as some kind of honest observer of the evidence. It's tragic and cute at the same time - I do wish that you had accidentally stumbled upon something true and obstinately defended that. But as long as you're entertaining, I really don't care.

You're my comic book. If you weren't funny, you'd be worthless.

 

[godnotgod]

Exactly. Rene, if he's spammed properly here, is an idiot.

His follower is gullible. Some of his followers are idiots also, but I'd like to presume that they are just gullible.

And symptomatic of your gullibility is your defense of him as some kind of honest observer of the evidence. It's tragic and cute at the same time - I do wish that you had accidentally stumbled upon something true and obstinately defended that. But as long as you're entertaining, I really don't care.

You're my comic book. If you weren't funny, you'd be worthless.

I tossed the issue out in the form of a video for discussion. You don't want to have a discussion. You just want to let everyone know that anyone who agrees with the premise of the video is an idiot, without any further qualification. You come in here, you arrogantly drop your load, and then leave. We who don't buy into a 1st century Nazareth are supposed to agree with you that we are just idiots, along with Salm and Randi, just on your say-so, because you are some sort of authoritative guru on the subject. We should simply salivate at the ringing of your bell, and dutifully follow, but you are the one who continues to follow me around. What do you want? Candy? Do you want candy?

I wonder what others might have to say about the fact that you see them as idiots.

So far, you have offered little in terms of real discussion, and have only succeeded in proving yourself to be the one who is worthless, though in your eyes, you are 'adorable' (yuk!) and possess a superior intellect,biglaugh both of which are completely laughable.

So thanks for providing the entertainment, though having to put up with your juvenile displays of a self=proclaimed 'superior intellect' gets boring real fast. I'd rather listen to the oh, so intelligent James Randi, whom you are no match for. In fact, you're just full of fluff and poppycock, aren't you? But then again, what can be expected from someone gullible enough to swallow a 1st century Nazareth?

Would you like some more of that nice, pretend tea? Perhaps 'twould be best if you first emptied your cup. That stuff you keep hawking is getting a bit stale, especially in view of the fact that you want people to pay you for it.
*****

A monk told Joshu, “I have just entered the monastery. Please teach me.”
Joshu asked, “Have you eaten your rice porridge?
The monk replied, “I have eaten.”
Joshu said, “Then you had better wash your bowl.”

 

[godnotgod]

Not as long as I am pleased with your responses.

Every time I see that you've posted here it puts me in a good mood for a while.

(Well, most of the time)

I keep telling you: if you want a longer lasting Sensation High, you'd be best off donning that Elvis costume and heading for the bright cheap and gaudy lights of Vegas. If you don't succeed as an Elvis impersonator, you'd be perfect as a carnie barker for one of the topless shows. In your spare time, you could hawk your books to impress the public, while raking in the dough. By the time they find out you're nothing but an intellectual fraud, you'll be in the Bahamas, sipping on Mai Tais and laughing your fool head off...until....heh heh heh..

So cheer up and have another drink. Even frauds eventually get to see God.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

We who don't buy into a 1st century Nazareth are supposed to agree with you that we are just idiots, along with Salm and Randi, just on your say-so, because you are some sort of authoritative guru on the subject.

Yes, I am an authority on the subject. But there's not much to master on this issue. We're talking about whether or not a certain city existed in the first century, which really is not a difficult thing to ascertain and a magnificently stupid thing upon which to build a career. Hey - if it sells - I don't see any reason why they shouldn't take advantage of suckers. But I'd bet one bourbon, one scotch, and one beer that you haven't even contributed to their cause, even for all that spam.

If Salm and Randi want to be idiots and destroy all of their credibility, that's fine. Hopefully some morons will buy their book -- good for them. I could care less. I suspect and hope, however, that your representation of them makes them look more stupid than they actually are, but I'm not exactly sure.

We should simply salivate at the ringing of your bell, and dutifully follow, but you are the one who continues to follow me around.

By no means. I don't want you to dutifully follow me, because you'd be no fun if you did.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, I am an authority on the subject.

You've not demonstrated that. You need to do that before calling everyone else 'idiots'.

But there's not much to master on this issue. We're talking about whether or not a certain city existed in the first century, which really is not a difficult thing to ascertain and a magnificently stupid thing upon which to build a career.

No one that I know of is doing that.

Now you go back to calling Nazareth a 'city' (ie 'polis'), after previously referring to it as a backwater hamlet. You're right, though about the fact that it is not difficult to ascertain the existence of a 1st century city of Nazareth. No such remains of any 'city' , or even a hamlet, exists.

Hey - if it sells - I don't see any reason why they shouldn't take advantage of suckers. But I'd bet one bourbon, one scotch, and one beer that you haven't even contributed to their cause, even for all that spam.

Hey, I'm a Disney fan. All my money is on Nazareth Village!

If Salm and Randi want to be idiots and destroy all of their credibility, that's fine. Hopefully some morons will buy their book -- good for them. I could care less. I suspect and hope, however, that your representation of them makes them look more stupid than they actually are, but I'm not exactly sure.

Have another bourbon, scotch, and a beer. That should make things perfectly clear for you.

By no means. I don't want you to dutifully follow me, because you'd be no fun if you did.

No, it's more fun (and educational) for you if you follow me. Candy?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You've not demonstrated that. You need to do that before calling everyone else 'idiots'.

You're not qualified to judge my credentials.

You've demonstrated that.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Now you go back to calling Nazareth a 'city' (ie 'polis'), after previously referring to it as a backwater hamlet.

No, fallingblood called it a hamlet.

And you have no clue what you're referring to with "polis." You can only blindly follow your spam.

Because you're too lazy to read or verify your sources, I provided lexical information and commentary on "polis" earlier in the thread. You can't even look up "polis" in a dictionary.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

hmmmm

Someone who doesn't bother to put the least bit of effort into verifying their source - OR WHO CANNOT - is blindly and obstinately defending it.

This is ridiculous. Tragically ironic. Pathetic. Base. Lazy. Inept. Incompetent. Dishonest. Bland. Boring. Cheap.

 

[godnotgod]

No, fallingblood called it a hamlet.

Yes, and I believe you referred to it as a village. In both cases, the implication is that Nazareth was a small, insignificant settlement. Now you choose to refer to it as a 'city'.

And you have no clue what you're referring to with "polis." You can only blindly follow your spam.

I follow the general consensus for 'polis' to mean primarily 'city', and 'city-state', as determined by a cursory check of about 10 different online reference sources, including the lexicon on biblos.com. That is good enough for me and the general public.

Because you're too lazy to read or verify your sources, I provided lexical information and commentary on "polis" earlier in the thread. You can't even look up "polis" in a dictionary.

I read the key points of your post. Your reference is not the norm. In regards to it referring to polis as a body of citizens, I explained that this reference developed later, after polis as city was already established.

 

[godnotgod]

hmmmm

Someone who doesn't bother to put the least bit of effort into verifying their source - OR WHO CANNOT - is blindly and obstinately defending it.

This is ridiculous. Tragically ironic. Pathetic. Base. Lazy. Inept. Incompetent. Dishonest. Bland. Boring. Cheap.

Bible Search Results: polis

Now go to your room!:slap:

 

[godnotgod]

In short order, Christian apologists fall over themselves to explain 'But of course, no one had heard of Nazareth, we're talking of a REALLY small place.' By semantic downsizing, city becomes TOWN, town becomes VILLAGE, and village becomes 'OBSCURE HAMLET'.

Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built

(Folks, now watch as AE goes apoplectic and rabid over my source. Grrrrrrrr!):biglaugh:

 

[godnotgod]

You're not qualified to judge my credentials.

You've demonstrated that.

Calling others who present a viable argument that does not agree with your position 'idiots' while spouting off under the color of authority about your 'credentials' does'nt cut it, especially when you stop short of providing a counter-argument.

Any and all words you post here are subject to scrutiny and judgment by anyone, even by idiots.

Even Phd's have been reduced to tears on their Zen meditation mats. Credentials have a tendency to get washed away in the humbling process.

You remind me of what is called 'Inka Zen', where Zen 'Masters' are awarded a 'Certificate of Enlightenment', which they post on the wall behind their desk.

Tired of hearing about your 'credentials'. Can't you provide some other form of entertainment? Why'ncha tell us all about the wonderful 'city of Nazareth', grandpa? I love a good bedtime story.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Calling others who present a viable argument

You haven't presented a viable argument.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I follow the general consensus for 'polis' to mean primarily 'city', and 'city-state', as determined by a cursory check of about 10 different online reference sources, including the lexicon on biblos.com. That is good enough for me and the general public.

Well, that shows a willful ignorance of history and a completely bankrupt knowledge of Greek.

Even worse, your laziness demonstrates contempt for yourself as well as your subject.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In short order, Christian apologists fall over themselves to explain 'But of course, no one had heard of Nazareth, we're talking of a REALLY small place.' By semantic downsizing, city becomes TOWN, town becomes VILLAGE, and village becomes 'OBSCURE HAMLET'.

Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built

(Folks, now watch as AE goes apoplectic and rabid over my source. Grrrrrrrr!):biglaugh:

Yes. This is polemic, and you're using it as spam.

You're demonstrating an unfortunate lack of competence for choosing a good source.

This incompetence is bad for you, but good for whoever's selling you anything. O how I wish that person was me. But at least I have the benefit of a sometimes entertaining sod.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Bible Search Results: polis

Now go to your room!:slap:

No. That's not good enough. You're going to have to *gasp* THINK about how you come to such lousy conclusions from the evidence that is available (which obviously you don't).

Try - LSJ, Middle Liddell, Slater, and Autenrieth (different books by the way). You're going to have to look at more than ten examples that were provided for you specifically so you would come to an artificial and incomplete conclusion. The author of the website was banking on the ignorance and gullibility of his reader, which is disgusting.